Standing Committee D

[Mr. Alan Hurst in the Chair]

Railways and Transport Safety Bill

New clause 25 - Seat belts: delivery drivers

'The following shall be substituted for section 14(2)(b)(i) of the Road Traffic Act {**em**}1988 (c.52) (seat belts: exceptions: delivery drivers)— 
 ''(i) the driver of or a passenger in a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for carrying goods, while on a journey which does not exceed the prescribed distance and which is undertaken for the purpose of delivering or collecting any thing,''.'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
 Question proposed [this day], That the clause be read a Second time. 
 Question again proposed. 
 The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing new clause 24—Requirement for adults to wear adult seat belts— 
 '.—A person driving or riding in the front or rear seat of a vehicle constructed or adapted for the delivery of goods or mail to consumer addressees, as the case may be, while engaged in making local rounds or deliveries or collections shall wear an adult seat belt.'.

John Randall: Just before we adjourned, I was declaring an interest. I do not know whether it is necessary, but it is always wise to err on the side of caution. The family business in which I am still a shareholder uses delivery vehicles to supply the fine merchandise that we purvey. It is a free delivery service.

Anne McIntosh: Does the firm stretch to an internet service?

John Randall: We are an old, established company. We are just getting the hang of decimal coinage.
 I have worked for the company from an early age and spent a lot of time on delivery vans. I understand the culture of delivery vehicles and the problem that many people have with taking seat belts on and off. I am especially interested to hear, therefore, about the time scale and distances involved. 
 I have a dilemma with the two new clauses. Initially, I was taken by the Liberal Democrats' idea that seat belts should be worn on all occasions. Hon. Members will know that, when the wearing of seat belts was first made compulsory and, latterly, when a good friend and former colleague passed a private Member's Bill making the wearing of seat belts in the rear of vehicles compulsory, many people found it difficult to adapt. Lorry and van drivers large and small do not always put on their seat belts and would probably welcome an excuse not to comply. For obvious reasons, it can be a major cause of fatal injury not to wear one. 
 Having been teased by the Liberal Democrats' new clause, however, I now believe that the Government's new clause might be nearer the mark, but only as I 
 heard exactly what the Government understand by the time and distances involved. For example, the Minister mentioned dust-carts. The person having to go in and out of the passenger side could be excused for not wearing a seat belt, but the driver should wear one because he is not continually going in and out of the cab, although the driver may be a ''she'' for all that I know. 
 My particular interest may become relevant in the case of a driver who was not wearing a seat belt sustaining serious injury in an accident. Would the company be held liable for not putting a large notice on the van's dashboard saying, ''You must wear your seat belt at all times''? Is it a matter of law that the company would not be responsible? If there is a grey area, what will the employer's liability be? 
 With the freedom that I now enjoy to pick and choose between Government and Liberal Democrat new clauses, I wait with bated breath the answers to my questions and will then decide which option to choose.

Tom Brake: Clearly, the Liberal Democrats can claim a partial victory. The press release has now been written and the presses will be printing the ''Focus'' leaflets so that they can be sent across the country to proclaim the partial victory that has been achieved.

David Cairns: Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that the Liberal Democrats will have a single position on the same issue throughout the entire country? History should record whether that is the case.

Tom Brake: I do not know why that should surprise the hon. Gentleman so much. We have a clear and consistent position on all issues throughout the country, as does the Labour party if one looks at Scotland and Westminster.
 We will be claiming a partial victory. However, we have some reservations about new clause 25. The advantage of our new clause is that it is much easier to enforce and administer. How will the police monitor the prescribed distance and how will the measuring be carried out to ensure that it is not exceeded? 
 If a more stringent requirement had been introduced for the use of safety belts in vans, manufacturers would have swiftly found technological fixes to ensure that quick release mechanisms were available so that van drivers and their passengers would be inconvenienced as little as possible by having to use them. Unfortunately, the Government's proposal will not create the impetus to come up with technological developments. 
 We need to take action with regard to van drivers. The Under-Secretary of State answered a parliamentary question that I posed a few months ago on seat belt-wearing rates for cars and vans. In April 2002, 91 per cent. of car drivers and 93 per cent. of their front-seat passengers wore safety belts. For van drivers, the figures were 64 per cent. and 51 per cent. respectively. Only about half of the front-seat passengers in vans were wearing their safety belts, and for both van drivers and front-seat passengers, there 
 has been a reduction in the use of seat belts over the past few years. 
 In addition to the measures proposed by us and the Government, there is a need for more publicity campaigns to encourage van drivers and passengers to use their seat belts. By how much does the Minister expect that the statistics will improve if the new clause is adopted? For drivers who travel further than the prescribed distance, the aim should be to match the current figures for car drivers and their front-seat passengers. 
 If the Government launch a campaign to encourage van drivers and their passengers to use safety belts, it should encompass adult rear-seat passengers in cars because they are also irregular users of safety belts. A campaign is needed to encourage them to use them.

John Randall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any restrictions that apply to young people in the front of vans? I have often seen youngsters in vans with their father, perhaps during half-term, and I am not sure that they should be doing it. I wonder whether allowances would be made for young people. That could be quite serious.

Tom Brake: I do not have the answer but perhaps the Minister—or his officials, if he does not know—can assist and clarify the matter. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many van drivers think, for whatever reason, that it is appropriate to have their children sitting on the dashboard without any restraint. It would be useful to have confirmation on the current legal position, and to know whether the Minister believes that new clause 25 would assist in relation to children.
 Clearly, we welcome the Government's conversion to our cause. We would have preferred for new clause 24 to be adopted, but if that is not the Government's wish, we will support their proposal.

Anne McIntosh: I have some sympathy with the comments of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns), and I think that the Committee shares his surprise. For the first time in recorded history the Liberal Democrats are claiming to be saying the same thing across the country.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Lady may be interested to know that, on Luton borough council, the Liberals Democrats have abstained on all budget decisions just before they are to fight the local elections. They are at least consistent.

Alan Hurst: Order. I call Miss McIntosh.

Anne McIntosh: What the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) says is not surprising.
 We are slightly disappointed that the Under-Secretary has not seen fit to support any of our amendments, including the change to the title, but there is still time. Perhaps we can discuss that on the chain ferry in Plymouth in the summer. I hope that the Minister will agree that we have raised some issues that he would wish to endorse. 
 On the fitting of seat belts, a momentous anniversary was reached just this month. That is worthy of note. When the Minister spoke to new clause 25, he referred to the prescribed distance. It would be helpful to know how short that distance would be. There are other issues relating to delivery vehicles. I am mindful of the interests of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). Delivery vans are never far from the minds of those on the Conservative Benches for obvious reasons. 
 I gather that one does not have to wear a seat belt if the engine is running but the car is stationary or technically deemed to be parked. I wonder why the Government—or, indeed, the Liberal Democrats—have not covered that scenario. Clearly, it could cause some embarrassment if a person did not have to wear a seat belt because they had stopped or were travelling a short distance—we will learn later what those distances might be—but were prosecuted for other things, such as illegally keeping the engine running. It would be helpful to have some guidance from the Minister on that. 
 My concern, to which the Minister alluded, relates to the additional responsibility and duties on the police should either new clauses 25 or 24 be accepted by the Committee. Can he tell us how the police force will monitor all aspects, including the distance that is being travelled? The point about young persons travelling in delivery vans has already been raised. 
 I record my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge for all the help and assistance that he has given me. He has moved to the Back Benches, but I hope that that is only temporary. I am sure that that does not reflect on the companionship that we have enjoyed on the Front Bench, or on the lengths to which I have gone to move some of the amendments and new clauses. He has supported me not just during the Bill, but on many other occasions. I am sure that his sojourn on the Back Bench will be short lived and that he will return to the Front Bench soon. 
 On how police will enforce the new legislation, my hon. Friend suggested that the issue of delivery vans in London and other towns would be problematic. It would be helpful to know how much time and additional resources the police will be given. I am mindful of the fact that the Minister has seen fit to move the new clause, but how will the police perform their duties under it?

David Jamieson: An exemption was made in the Transport Act 1981 to satisfy industry concerns that those making frequent stops in delivery vehicles would be inconvenienced without any particular casualty reduction. The difficulty is that many delivery drivers believe that they are totally exempt from wearing a seat belt. The amendment, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and the Liberal Democrats, would address that.
 I am interested to hear from the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) about the 
 new concept of Liberal Democrats saying the same thing in all parts of the country. I look forward to that spreading to the west country—I would be pleased if it happened between wards in my constituency. I heard him say that he has had a partial victory, and, as we reach the final knockings of the Bill, we shall allow a Liberal Democrat to say that. 
 The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) asked about monitoring and measuring. New clause 25 clarifies the law. We monitor the rates of seat belt wearing and look for any increases and decreases in vans. The police will continue to enforce the law, but they will have a clearer law to enforce. I have been asked to say what the distance will be, but it would not right for me to say that because it is a matter for consultation. It would not be right to pre-empt consultation, and if I did the hon. Lady would be the first on her feet to accuse me of doing so.

Anne McIntosh: Can the Minister, in the spirit of good will that accompanies this stage of proceedings, give us an inkling—a soup¢on of an answer—with regard to the distance that will be suggested in the consultation document?

David Jamieson: I would say that 100 miles was inappropriate but that 1 yd would be rather short. Somewhere in between those distances might be appropriate.
 The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked about better publicity. There is a good to case to be made for better publicity, and my Department has tried to achieve that through the trade journals and magazines, often quite successfully.

Kelvin Hopkins: It transpires that my hon. Friend and I have some statistical knowledge. The thought occurs to me that deaths from accidents rise more than proportionately to speed. Speed is critical. If a speed limit were built into the provision, so that seat belts had to be worn if the vehicle were travelling at more than 30 mph, the problem would be overcome. In such circumstances, long distances would, of course, be outside built-up areas and relevant speed limits. A speed limit of 30 mph would be appropriate for deliveries in built-up areas; indeed, the limit might even be lower. That might be a useful addition to the Bill.

David Jamieson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Delivery drivers who stop and start during very short distances may not get any speed up at all. In fact, they may be travelling at 10 mph to 15 mph and would probably have a low risk of creating a casualty, or injuring themselves. The idea is useful for consultation, but it would depend on the speed on particular roads. If the speed limit were 30 mph, drivers would be committing an offence if they went above it.
 The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked about young people and adults. The position would be the same for adults as for young people; they must wear a restraint if one is available and is applicable for the vehicle. 
 The hon. Member for Uxbridge—

John Randall: Will the Under-Secretary give way?

David Jamieson: I was just coming to the hon. Gentleman's points.

John Randall: On that last point?

David Jamieson: I am glad to give way.

John Randall: On restraints, would the new clauses apply to children even if they were technically passengers and not working?

David Jamieson: To be clear about that, and about the issue of engines running raised by the hon. Member for Vale of York, it is probably best if I drop a note to Committee members, rather than try to deal with it on the hoof. It is a good point, but it is often easy to be wrong on such fine details because different seat belt laws apply to different categories of vehicle.
 I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Uxbridge. I heard that he had moved from his present position. One wishes that the hon. Lady had only seen his face; I thought that he had given up the will to live on a couple of occasions, especially during her contributions. She needs a rear-view mirror to see what is going on around her in Committee. 
 I think that I have answered most of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I thought that his insights into the purveying of furniture were very interesting. Sometimes, I look at the hon. Gentleman and think, ''Would I buy a second hand wardrobe from this man?'' And the answer is that, indeed, I would—he is a decent, honest man. 
 Employer liability comes under general company law; perhaps I could include that matter in the note that I will write to Committee members. Some tricky issues are involved, and I want to be correct in what I say. Of course, companies have to provide a safe system for their employees to work in. There is, however, a difference between the driver's responsibility on the road—being responsible for his or her own safety—and the employer's responsibility to ensure that that person is safe. There is a narrow line between the two things and I would not want to say anything that might cross that line. 
 The debate has been useful, but I hope on balance that I have persuaded the Committee that my right hon. Friend's amendment will prevail.

Tom Brake: No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and I could muster many superior arguments to support our amendment. However, the numbers are not on our side. If the new clause is not successful in the months to come and if it does not reduce the number who do not wear safety belts, will the Minister reconsider our proposal?
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 7 - The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Establishment

'(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint persons as inspectors of road accidents. 
 (2) The Secretary of State shall appoint one of the inspectors as the Chief Inspector of Road Accidents. 
 (3) The inspectors appointed under this section may be referred to as the Road Accident Investigation Branch (being a branch of the department of the Secretary of State who appoints them). 
 (4) An inspector of road accidents shall carry out such of the functions of the Road Accident Investigation Branch as may be assigned to him by the Chief Inspector of Road Accidents.'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New clause 8—The Road Accident Investigation Branch: General aims— 
'In exercising their functions the Road Accident Investigation Branch shall have regard to the desirability of— 
 (a) improving the safety of users of roads, and 
 (b) preventing road accidents and road incidents.'.
 New clause 9—The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Assistance to others— 
'The Chief Inspector of Road Accidents may arrange, with the written consent of the Secretary of State, for the Road Accident Investigation Branch to assist any person; in particular, assistance— 
 (a) may be provided with or without charge; 
 (b) may be provided inside or outside the United Kingdom.'.
 New clause 10—The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Investigations— 
'(1) The Road Accident Investigation Branch shall investigate any road accident in which there is a fatality 
 (2) In investigating an accident or incident the Branch shall try to determine what caused it. 
 (3) On completion of an investigation the Branch shall report to the Secretary of State. 
 (4) In performing a function in relation to an accident or incident the Branch— 
 (a) shall not consider or determine blame or liability, but 
 (b) may determine and report on a cause of an accident or incident whether or not blame or liability is likely to be inferred from the determination or report. 
 (5) The Branch may conduct an investigation and report whether or not civil or criminal proceedings are in progress or may be instituted (but this subsection is without prejudice to the operation of the law of contempt of court). 
 (6) The Chief Inspector of Road Accidents may apply to the High Court or the Crown Court for a declaration that the making of a report in connection with a specified accident or incident will not amount to a contempt of court in relation to civil or criminal proceedings which have been or may be instituted in connection with the accident or incident. 
 (7) The Chief Inspector of Road Accidents may reopen an investigation if he believes that significant new evidence may be available.'.
 New clause 11—The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Investigator's powers— 
'(1) For the purpose of conducting an investigation by virtue of section 4 an inspector of road accidents may, provided that he produces evidence of his identity if asked to do so— 
 (a) enter land (which may include a dwellinghouse) which adjoins or abuts a public right of way; 
 (b) with consent from a Chief Police Inspector, enter a vehicle which is on a public right of way; 
 (c) enter land, premises or vehicles which do not fall within paragraph (a) or (b) if the inspector reasonably believes that it may contain evidence relating to an accident or incident; 
 (d) in entering anything under paragraph (a), (b) or (c), be accompanied by one or more persons authorised by the Chief Inspector of Road Accidents for that purpose (whether generally or specifically); 
 (e) in entering anything under paragraph (a), (b) or (c), make arrangements to have with him equipment or materials. 
 (2) For the purpose of conducting an investigation by virtue of section [The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Investigations] an inspector of road accidents may— 
 (a) make a written, electronic, photographic or other record; 
 (b) remove and retain samples; 
 (c) arrange for anything to be removed and retained for the purpose of analysis or other examination or for the purpose of preserving evidence; 
 (d) require access to a record or to recording equipment; 
 (e) require a person to answer a question; 
 (f) require a person to provide information; 
 (g) require a person to disclose a record; 
 (h) require a person to provide a copy of a record; 
 (i) require disclosure of the result of an examination of a person, body or thing; 
 (j) require a person to certify the truth, accuracy or authenticity of a statement made, of information or a document provided or of a record disclosed. 
 (3) A person commits an offence if without reasonable excuse he— 
 (a) fails to comply with a requirement imposed by an inspector of road accidents for the purpose of an investigation by virtue of section [The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Investigations]; 
 (b) makes a statement for the purpose of an investigation by virtue of section [The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Investigations] knowing or suspecting that the statement is inaccurate or misleading; 
 (c) provides information or a record for the purpose of an investigation by virtue of section [The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Investigations] knowing or suspecting that the information or record is inaccurate or misleading; 
 (d) obstructs an inspector of road accidents in the course of his conduct of an investigation by virtue of section [The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Investigations]; 
 (e) obstructs a person accompanying an inspector of road accidents; or 
 (f) obstructs a person exercising a power of an inspector by virtue of regulations under section 5(1). 
 (4) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to— 
 (a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks; 
 (b) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale; or 
 (c) both. 
 (5) Subsection (6) applies where— 
 (a) the Road Accident Investigation Branch is conducting an investigation by virtue of section 4 in respect of an accident or incident; and 
 (b) a question arises as to the desirability of action which any other person proposes to take for the purpose of investigating the accident or incident. 
 (6) The question may be determined by— 
 (a) the Chief Inspector of Road Accidents; or 
 (b) an inspector of road accidents acting on behalf of the Chief Inspector.'.
 New clause 12—The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Regulations— 
'(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations about the conduct of investigations by the Road Accident Investigation Branch; in particular, the regulations may— 
 (a) confer a function on the Chief Inspector of Road Accidents or on the Branch; 
 (b) make provision about the way in which a function of the Chief Inspector or the Branch is to be performed; 
 (c) permit or require the Chief Inspector to appoint a person to conduct or participate in an investigation; 
 (d) provide for a power of an inspector to be exercisable by a person conducting or participating in an investigation by virtue of paragraph (c); 
 (e) permit or require the Chief Inspector to request assistance from another person; 
 (f) permit or require another person to assist the Chief Inspector. 
 (2) The regulations may make provision about the preparation, form, content and publication of a report made by the Branch under section [The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Investigator's Powers]; in particular, the regulations may— 
 (a) require a report to address the question of what caused an accident or incident; 
 (b) require or permit a report to make, or not to make, a recommendation; 
 (c) require or permit the preparation and publication by the Branch of an interim report; 
 (d) require the Branch to give an opportunity to a person interested in an investigation to comment on a draft report or draft interim report; 
 (e) require the Branch to notify a person of the content of a report or interim report before publication; 
 (f) require the Branch to give a copy of a report or interim report to a person; 
 (g) make provision about the timing of publication. 
 (3) A reference to a report by the Branch in section 4 includes a reference to an interim report permitted or required by virtue of subsection (2) above. 
 (4) The Secretary of State may make regulations about the use, disclosure and destruction of information acquired by the Branch; in particular, the regulations may— 
 (a) prohibit the disclosure of information in specified circumstances; 
 (b) permit the disclosure of information in specified circumstances; 
 (c) require the disclosure of information in specified circumstances; 
 (d) make provision by reference to whether or not a person consents to a disclosure which relates to him; 
 (5) Regulations under this section may— 
 (a) create an offence (but not an offence punishable by imprisonment); 
 (b) confer a discretionary function; 
 (c) confer jurisdiction on a court or tribunal.'.
 New clause 13—The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Requirement to investigate— 
'(1) The Chief Inspector of Road Accidents may direct that any road accident or road incident of a specified kind or which occurs in specified circumstances shall be investigated by each person who manages or controls, or participates in managing or controlling, all or any part of public rights of right— 
 (a) on which the accident or incident takes place, or 
 (b) which is involved in the accident or incident. 
 (2) A direction— 
 (a) shall specify the manner in which the investigation is to be conducted, and 
 (b) may make provision for a case where more than one person would be required to conduct an investigation, whether by 
requiring a joint investigation or by requiring or enabling one or more persons to conduct an investigation on behalf of others. 
 (3) A person to whom a direction under subsection (1) applies commits an offence if he fails to comply with it. 
 (4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3) shall be liable— 
 (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or 
 (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine. 
 (5) The Chief Inspector shall publish a direction issued by him under subsection (1) in a manner which he considers will bring it to the attention of each person who is likely to be required to comply with it. 
 (6) But in proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (3) of failing to comply with a direction it shall not be necessary to prove that he was aware of the direction. 
 (7) A direction under subsection (1)— 
 (a) may make provision which applies generally or only in specified circumstances, 
 (b) may make different provision for different cases or circumstances, and 
 (c) may be varied or revoked by a further direction.'.
 New clause 14—The Road Accident Investigation Branch: accident regulations— 
'(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations in connection with the investigation of road accidents. 
 (2) The regulations may, in particular— 
 (a) require a person to notify the Road Accident Investigation Branch of a road accident and, 
 (b) make provision about the timing, form and content of notice given by virtue of paragraph (a). 
 (3) The regulations may, in particular, require a person to take or not to take specified action following an accident or incident— 
 (a) pending the commencement of an investigation, or 
 (b) during the process of an investigation. 
 (4) The regulations may— 
 (a) create an offence (but not an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding the maximum term which may be imposed by a magistrates' court in accordance with section 78 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c.6)); 
 (b) confer a discretionary function; 
 (c) confer jurisdiction on a court or tribunal.'.
 New clause 15—The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Crown application— 
 'This Part applies in relation to property irrespective of whether it belongs to or is used for the purposes of the Crown or a Duchy.'.
 New clause 16—The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Regulations and orders— 
'(1) Regulations and orders under this Part— 
 (a) may make provision which applies generally or only in specified cases or circumstances, 
 (b) may make different provision for different cases or circumstances, and 
 (c) may include transitional, consequential or incidental provision. 
 (2) Regulations and orders under this Part shall be made by statutory instrument. 
 (3) Regulations under this Part shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
 New clause 17—The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Extent— 
'(2) This Part extends to the whole of the United Kingdom. 
 (a) In the application of this Part in relation to Northern Ireland the maximum term for the purposes of section [The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Investigator's Powers] (4)(a) shall be 12 months.'.

Don Foster: I return to the debate that was begun in a sense by the amendment moved this morning by the hon. Member for Vale of York. During those deliberations, all members of the Committee were conscious of the crucial importance of road safety and the need for further measures to improve our roads. This morning, I paid tribute to the work done over several years to reduce deaths and serious casualties on our roads.
 However, notwithstanding the fact that we have the best record in Europe, additional measures could be taken. One way to develop new measures would be to do so from the results of investigations into road accidents. For a long time, we have accepted that such benefits apply to air and marine accidents, and have established the respective air and marine accident investigation branches. Because of our concern about accidents and incidents on the railways, we have seen fit in the Bill to support measures to introduce the rail accident investigation branch. Since the election of a Labour Government in 1997, about 150 people have died on the railways, yet about 17,000 people have died on our roads. I am not belittling the work done on our railways, but a crucial task remains to be undertaken in respect of road safety.

David Cairns: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He has twice referred to the election of the Government, when referring to fatalities. Is he using that just as an example of a measure of time or is he imputing responsibility to the current Government for such statistics? He should make his argument more clear.

Don Foster: As the hon. Gentleman will have noted from earlier deliberations in Committee and on the Floor of the House, many different statistics have been used to illustrate my point. He will be aware that I always coupled my comments about statistics with praise for the contribution that has been made by both the present and previous Governments. Statistics have improved and that is a tribute not only to those Governments, but to those who work on the ground such as the police, members of local authorities and others. There is no imputation in what I have said.
 I could have put matters differently, taken the statistics for 2001 and reminded the Committee that, during that time, 3,450 people died and a staggering 37,110 people were seriously injured on roads in Great Britain. That is why I am anxious that we take action. Clearly, much more needs to be done. The Government have their road safety strategy, which is important. However, as part of the package of measures, it would be a good idea to set up a similar body to those that have been introduced in respect of rail, marine and aviation accidents, and establish a road accident investigation branch. 
 I am well aware that we already have in place measures to ensure that accidents are investigated. 
 When there is death or injury, responsibility for investigation falls predominantly to the police. They conduct detailed investigations and gather information from investigations into the STATS 19 forms, which provide useful information that can be collated and used to help in the design and modification of roads and so forth. I am also conscious that the Road Traffic Act 1988 gave local authorities the responsibility for investigating road accidents and for taking action to prevent their repetition. 
 The problem with the current arrangements, however, is that only a limited number of police are involved in work on our roads. Despite several parliamentary questions from hon. Members of all parties, it has become difficult to ascertain whether numbers have declined or remained static, but there is no indication that the number of police involved in such work has increased. Clearly, the police, even those who do highly skilled work on our roads, are not fully trained in the same way as accident investigators. 
 Similarly, there is a shortage of people trained in the business of accident investigation working in local authorities. Such investigations help us to find ways of reducing the number of accidents. The establishment of a body of the type proposed by the new clause would create the opportunity to bring together a cadre of people with specific skills and expertise to enable them to examine accidents and develop strategies to help to reduce the number of accidents. 
 I am well aware that the hon. Member for Vale of York said that, although she supports measures to reduce the number of road accidents and improve road safety, she is concerned that the establishment of a new body would create an additional tier of bureaucracy—I believe that that was the phrase that she used. I am also conscious of the down sides to such proposals. On the other hand, a newspaper headline stating, ''3,500 people have died'' would result in a major scandal. The large number of people dying on our roads does not lead to the level of publicity that it might have led to, had those deaths occurred by other means. Even if additional costs are incurred and the establishment of additional bodies is required, it will be of great benefit in reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. 
 The Committee is probably bored of being reminded that I visited Sweden to see the work being done there. The sole purpose of my visit was to examine how the Swedes carry out accident investigation. The Committee will be interested to know that, as part of the roads division in the Swedish Ministry of Transport and Communications, on 1 January this year, the Swedes established a body along the lines of the one described in the new clause. It has been in place for only a few months, so it is too early to draw conclusions about any benefits, but I will be watching developments with considerable interest in the months and years to come. 
 Certainly, in Sweden, where several methods of collating data from road accidents have been tried and improvements resulting from that information have been sought, people conclude that to have a group of 
 people focused on road accidents is a sensible way forward. Notwithstanding the Minister's comment that transport includes roads, with its focus mainly on other areas of transport, the Bill has a significant hole in it, unless we are prepared to find ways of introducing measures such as the new clause to boost road safety. 
 I am conscious that the Government have introduced their three-year road safety, and we all want regular reports on progress. I am sure that the Under-Secretary agrees that there is still a long way to go in respect of the detail of reports in progress. I hope that he will consider, even if he is not prepared to accept, whether it might be important to strengthen aspects of the legislation relating to road safety before the Bill leaves both Houses.

Anne McIntosh: The Committee will recall that it was our amendment No. 16 to clause 10 that contained the embryo or, in the words of the hon. Member for Bath, the philosophy that all modes of transport should operate to the same high standards of safety, and that the sanctity of life should be reflected equally in road, rail, air and sea travel. The amendment stated:
''Accident reports such as those conducted in the event of a road accident should be completed by the relevant investigators acting under the provision of this Bill, ensuring greater transparency and security across all modes of travel.''
 The Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions recorded that my county of North Yorkshire had the worst record of casualties and fatalities for transit traffic. North Yorkshire seems to suffer more transit traffic than any other county. As a result, I am concerned about the general drift of road accident casualties in North Yorkshire in 1997 to 2001. The following figures have been provided by the Library. In 1997, there were 87 fatalities, and the total number of severe casualties was 5,088. Regrettably, the number of fatalities rose in 2000, but subsequently decreased to 82 in 2001. All severities, including fatalities, serious injuries and slight injuries, amounted to some 4,632, which is an unacceptably high figure. 
 It would have been courteous of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington to note that the provenance of his new clause was the private Member's Bill that was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). The Bill had a good hearing but was sadly not supported by the Government and was lost. The Bill contained a clause similar to new clause 7.

Don Foster: I want to tease the hon. Lady for a second. Can she remind the Committee of the order in which her amendment No. 28 and our new clauses were tabled?

Anne McIntosh: Perhaps I could write to the hon. Gentleman, because I will have to look into the matter, and I would hate to give the hon. Gentleman a false reply.

Don Foster: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Lady again. If she discovered that our new clauses had been tabled before her amendment, I hope that she would accept that the provenance of her amendment was us. All the measures contained in the Bill introduced by
 the hon. Member for North Wiltshire have been the subject of debate in the House for many years. She listed a large number of those measures. If she wants me to, I should be happy to send her an analysis of the contributions from various hon. Members on both sides of the House, and that is notwithstanding my huge congratulations to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire on compiling them as he did.

Anne McIntosh: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire will be delighted to hear that, and I look forward to exchanging letters with the hon. Member for Bath. I referred to the gestation of our amendment. The hon. Gentleman will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) used that wording. Regrettably, that amendment was not selected for debate, but it was on the Amendment Paper some time before the hon. Member for Bath had put pen to paper to write his new clauses. We can explore that outside the confines of the Committee in a lengthy exchange of letters, to which I look forward.
 I enjoy writing letters. One of the privileges of being a Member of Parliament is that one writes many letters in the course of a day, although not so often to parliamentary colleagues such as the hon. Member for Bath. However, it will be a joy to add him to my list of correspondents. He was lucky that his new clause was deemed to be suitable and I was unlucky that our amendment was not.

Alan Hurst: Order. That is quite enough about letter writing and the timing of the tabling of amendments and new clauses. Shall we return to this new clause?

Anne McIntosh: If I may refresh the Committee's memory, this issue was first aired on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. The new clauses are beautifully drafted, but I hate to think how many trees were felled—whether in Russia, Scandinavia or this country—to print them. Judging by the volumes of print-off, I do not think that the hon. Member for Bath can have spoken to each new clause. It would seem that he has not done himself justice.

Don Foster: Lest the hon. Lady feel concern about the number of trees, I assure her that I simply cut and pasted from other clauses. We merely deleted the word ''rail'' and inserted ''road''. It was a fairly simple exercise.

Anne McIntosh: I am disappointed. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would have liked to make out that he had done a little more research. I am hugely relieved that he did not ask me to accompany him on his now well-known visit to Sweden. We have heard much about it that we will not forget in a hurry. I am glad that he did not ask me to act as his interpreter on that occasion. Perhaps he did not entirely understand some of the evidence that he heard and so did not quite get the gist of what was happening. Again, we can explore that in the confines of our private correspondence, which I am sure will not be of such interest to members of the Committee.
 We cannot support new clauses 7 to 17, because establishing a road accident investigation branch to 
 find out how many accidents there are per year, as the hon. Member for Bath suggests, would give rise to the need for considerable powers of investigation. I may have missed it—perhaps I cannot see the wood for the trees—but I cannot find the provision that tells us what criteria would be used. That is what we sought to do at the beginning of the Committee. It will be a memory exercise for members of the Committee to hark back to clause 1, under which we sought to define which accidents and incidents should be investigated. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would assist me and say where he has specified which accidents and incidents would be investigated by such a road accident investigation branch. Presumably, with many thousands of accidents each year, there will be a vast new bureaucracy.

Don Foster: If the hon. Lady had bothered to do her homework she would find what she is looking for in new clause 10(a).

Anne McIntosh: It would have been of assistance to the Committee if the hon. Gentleman had talked us through all the hard work that he has done. I am grateful for his guidance about clause 10(a). Is that correct?

John Randall: I think that the hon. Member for Bath meant to refer to new clause 10(1). However, we should not quibble.

Anne McIntosh: Perhaps the hon. Member for Bath should have his eyes tested. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge is correct, as always. We are referring not to clause 10(a) because that would not make any sense, but to new clause 10(1), which states:
''The Road Accident Investigation Branch shall investigate any road accident in which there is a fatality.''
 As has been mentioned, in the last five and a half or six years there have been thousands of such accidents. Therefore, there would be a plethora of investigations. 
 Unfortunately, an earlier amendment of ours was deemed not to be in good order. The hon. Member for Bath moved his amendments swiftly, so it is possible to refer to STATS 19. As we mentioned, it is interesting to note the types of information that might be available to the rail accident investigation branch. I assume that the hon. Gentleman would wish for them to be available—or, at least, to be considered—but I fear that he will not be successful in that regard, although I hate to disappoint him after all the hard work that he has done. In the normal course of events, it will take the police and the Transport Research Laboratory a considerable amount of time to investigate such matters, and where a reparation case follows as a result of such investigations, the courts will be involved and they will rely heavily on their work. 
 In an earlier debate, the Minister confirmed that where an insurance company defends such an accident under present road traffic provisions, it would, if it requested a witness statement, normally have to pay the police for furnishing it. That is interesting. I once 
 insisted on giving a witness statement before I left the scene of an accident in which a youngster almost lost his life. I hope that the Minister will confirm what the present law is. 
 It is highly regrettable that to avoid paying the police for a witness statement, the insurance company might go to that witness after a long delay: a considerable period might have passed before the witness made an initial statement. I know only too well from having seen witness statements and from having tried to get a witness in court to stand by a statement that details become blurred as time elapses from when the initial witness statement was given. It is a regrettable fact of life that there is potential for conflict between witness statements from the same witness when the insurance company has refused to pay the police for that statement. It would be helpful to know from the Minister if the Government are considering looking into that. 
 If the hon. Member for Bath is minded to withdraw his new clause, I hope that he will feel that at least most of the causes of a fatality or a serious accident are well recorded in an exemplary fashion in STATS 19. The casualty records address the class of casualty—is it the driver of the vehicle, a motorcycle, a pillion passenger or a pedestrian? They consider the sex of the casualty, the age of the casualty, the severity of injury to the casualty, where the pedestrian was located, whether he was moving, and in what direction he was facing. Factors such as whether the casualty was a school pupil or a car passenger are taken into account. Useful, detailed information is given in STATS 19. Is the hon. Member for Bath suggesting that such information should no longer be passed from the police to the transport research laboratory but should be given to the road accident investigation branch? If so, what would be the status of STATS 19? 
 Should court action result from such information? Could it be used as evidence in court? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could point to where such level of detail appears in his new clause. STATS 19 is a remarkable document, and the level of statistics is detailed and helpful. It goes into the state of the road and the nature of the carriageway.

Don Foster: I share the hon. Lady's delight in the degree of detail and information contained in STATS 19. A few weeks ago, she helpfully read out the list of what it contains. Does she agree that its statistical base depends on the quality of the people who carry out the investigation? Successive Home Secretaries have increasingly focused their attention on street crime and drugs, and there is already increasing concern about the shortage of police carrying out traffic duties. Because of their mixed range of responsibilities, they are far less likely than others to have the detailed expertise and skills to carry out road accident investigations and to ensure high-quality data are displayed in the statistics. Does she agree that it would be better to have people trained especially to do the job?

Anne McIntosh: I disagree. I wish to place on the record my highest regard for the police. They are better qualified than others for the simple reason that they have undertaken such work for several years.
 Their reports are used as evidence and, on several occasions, they are asked to refer to those reports in court. It would be inappropriate to alter arrangements after such a long time in which operations have been successful and satisfactory. I hope that the Minister will agree to keep the tried-and-tested system.
 The shortage of police is a problem. We are familiar with that in North Yorkshire. I live probably less than eight miles from Sutton Bank, a well-known dangerous spot. Caravans have been banned, but drivers of inappropriate vehicles still want to drive up and down the steep bank. Its gradient is not only steep but has bends at its start and finish. I know for a fact that several police officers are often taken off their usual duties at Thirsk police station and sent on traffic duty. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues at the Home Office will plead for more police resources. He will gain support for that from both sides of the Committee. 
 I do not share the conviction of the hon. Member for Bath that there is a need to leave a system that has worked well. If anything, STATS 19 should be the document used by the rail accident investigation branch. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has done himself justice by suggesting that members of the rail accident investigation branch would be better placed than police officers to perform the duty that those officers have performed so adequately for a considerable time. Such a change would result in an inferior service to the courts in the event that a court action followed.

Don Foster: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady so often. I am listening with great care to what she is saying, but I fail to understand the logic of her argument. Am I correct in assuming that she and her colleagues—not least the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale—supported the establishment of the rail accident investigation branch with great acclamation for the same reasons that I am proposing for roads? Yet she seems now to suggest that her arguments about rail would not work for roads.

Anne McIntosh: At the moment, the railways as identified by Lord Cullen have no specific investigation branch. They are modelled on aviation and maritime rules and, had we remained in Government, we would have introduced such measures. We pledged in 1996 and 1997 to do that. We are saying that the system works well. We are not persuaded by the hon. Gentleman's new clause. We do not wish to set up a bureaucracy for which there has been no call. I wait to hear the Minister's response.

John Randall: It is a bit of a disappointment that I cannot support the Liberal Democrat Members. I accept that they mean well, but such a bureaucratic establishment would not help to reduce accidents. I am unable to support the new clause.

David Jamieson: The debate has been a useful one. Road safety is of considerable importance to my Department. We take it very seriously, and my officials work constantly to find ways to reduce casualties on the roads. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Bath rightly said that the number of casualties on our
 roads has been falling consistently for a long time. In fact, over the past 30 years, there has been a gradual reduction in the number of those killed or seriously injured. Moreover, the number of vehicles on the road has gradually increased. The rate at which casualties occur is reducing substantially year on year, and that must be a good thing.
 The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that 17,000 people have died in six years on our roads, which is appalling carnage and a statistic that causes us great worry. Another statistic that I sometimes use is that, each year, the number of children who die on our roads—just under 300—is equivalent to a medium-sized primary school. That is a disturbing figure. We have only to imagine the worry and heartache caused by those child casualties, let alone that caused by the adults who are killed. 
 Moreover, for every person who dies on the road, 10 people on average are seriously injured. Some of those, particularly older people, never recover properly from their injuries and remain disfigured or maimed for the rest of their lives. It is a serious problem, and there is wide agreement among all parties that action is needed taken. 
 The hon. Member for Bath referred to Sweden. When I am not in Committee, I occasionally leave the shores of this country. Sometimes, it is useful to look back to see whether we are taking the right action. I visited an accession state—I shall not say which one—to the European Union and considered issues concerned with road safety. That country had a high casualty rate. The number of vehicles on the road is 10 times higher than ours. However, there is no consensus in that society about the need to reduce road casualties. No culture is widely shared in that country between the various parts of Government and local government; no culture shares the ambition to create greater safety on the roads. 
 In Sweden, things are different. There is a strong culture of safety and wide consensus on the need for safety. That is why Sweden has a good record—as we do—which compares well with the record of the rest of the world. We look closely at countries that have good records, and Sweden is one of them. We consider what it does, as it considers what we do, to see whether we might learn from each other and to see which practices are appropriate. The hon. Member for Bath did not actually tell us whether Sweden had a body similar to the road accident investigation branch; perhaps he could tell us about that another time. He said that there was a group that pooled ideas, but I am unsure about whether he was formally saying that there was the equivalent of a road accident investigation branch. 
 I have considered the new clauses carefully. If we could take a measure that would reduce casualties on our roads, we would want to do it and it would find favour with us. However, having considered the amendments carefully, I am not sure that the proposals would take us any further forward than we are now. I wonder whether it would divert resources and human energy away from the areas on which we should focus to areas such as investigation 
 and whether it might duplicate work that is already carried out well. 
 The new clauses, which make proposals for road accidents, appear to ignore the number and nature of the type of casualties on our roads, and they also ignore the fact that sound arrangements exist for investigating them. There are some significant differences between road accident investigations and those for other modes of transport. 
 In 2001 there were 3,176 road accidents involving a fatality. In most cases, road accidents result from human failings and are not a consequence of technical or system failure, or any other negligence on the part of a regulated corporate body, such as a train operating company or an aircraft operator. I am therefore unconvinced that the suggested investigatory body would do anything to improve road safety or prevent further road accidents. A well-established process is in place for road accidents, and it was improved last year with the introduction of the police national Road Death Investigation Manual, of which I have a copy for the Committee. That comprehensive document sets out the guidelines that the police need to use to investigate serious road incidents. 
 The police investigate individual accidents thoroughly, not least because the causes of those could lead to the prosecution of some of, if not all, the drivers concerned. Such investigation may take several hours to complete at the side of the road and several weeks to conduct elsewhere. Police forces and their respective local authorities share information that could help them to improve the roads and to reduce the risk of accidents. Often, when I visit what are generally known as black spots, I am impressed to see local councillors, the Highways Agency and the police working together to consider how to reduce casualties. 
 My Department maintains a national database of road accident statistics, and it uses the data to inform research studies and, through those, to inform policy development. The data also enable us to check that we are delivering on our targets for reducing road safety by reducing deaths and injuries. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have set ourselves tough and demanding targets to reduce the number of people who are killed and seriously injured on our roads by 40 per cent. over a 10-year period, and, because our record is not so good in terms of children, by 50 per cent. for them. All our records show that we will meet that target, but there is no room for complacency. We must continue looking at measures that will help us to meet that target in an appropriate time. 
 Several research studies are under way on contributory factors to accidents. The studies include making detailed on-the-spot investigations of a sample of accidents as soon as they have occurred, and an in-depth analysis of detailed police files. Analysing data from a large number of accidents and looking for common threads is much more likely to lead to improved safety measures than a centralised investigation of individual accidents. Whereas I am confident that vehicle inspection and the efforts of the police and the highway authority teams combine to 
 provide the most effective way of investigating accidents and learning lessons, in extreme cases the Secretary of State has the power under section 179 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to hold inquiries for the purposes of the Act. 
 I am aware of what happens at local authority level. In the local transport plan for the area around the hon. Lady's constituency, my Department has provided a substantial sum; I stand to be corrected, but I think that in real terms it is two or three times as much as it was a few years ago. Those local transport plans include an undertaking to improve road safety. Because local conditions can sometimes cause accidents, it is important that local people should help in finding the solutions.

Anne McIntosh: Obviously I shall investigate the figures to discover whether they are as the Under-Secretary said they are. Is he aware that although the Government have given with one hand, they are taking away with the other? Regrettably, North Yorkshire police have been given a stand-still budget. The very people who should be investigating road accidents will be £8.2 million worse off in real terms. North Yorkshire police have been encouraged by the Government to take on extra officers, but the force will have great difficulty in paying them.

David Jamieson: I was referring to the local transport plan, for which my Department is responsible. From 2000–01 to now, there has been a substantial increase. It struck me when I visited an area adjoining the hon. Lady's constituency that it had enjoyed a particularly large factoring up of the funding available for that purpose. An important factor—it is a challenge for the Government—is to ensure that local authorities spend that money on road safety.
 The hon. Member for Bath should take the issue up with his colleagues on the local councils. I know that there is enormous pressure on budgets, but road safety is important. Short-term matters can sometimes take over, but a long-term reduction in casualties and the misery that goes with them is more important. It is incumbent on us all to talk to our colleagues in local government and to make sure that that is happening.

Don Foster: I agree. I am sure that councils of all political persuasions will need urging on. However, the Minister will have seen the recent reports showing that a number of local authorities are rather reluctant to introduce some of the measures in the initial local transport plans, even though the Government have made the money available. Will the Minister assure the Committee that he will press those councils, regardless of party political affiliation, to get on with the job for which they have been given the money?

David Jamieson: That issue concerns us. We are looking closely at the report, and if authorities are not spending the money allocated by my Department for a range of transport matters, road safety being one of them, perhaps in future we should place the money with those authorities that make best use of it. My putting it that way may give the hon. Gentleman some indication of our strength of feeling on the subject. We have made a big investment in local transport plans. We want local authorities to make decisions at a local
 level, but when we provide money for the purpose of transport and road safety, we want to ensure that it is spent on that. The local aspect is that it will be local people making decisions on how best to use the funding locally, as long as it is used for transport.
 The hon. Member for Vale of York spoke about the high casualty rates in her constituency. There is also a high casualty rate south of her part of the world, in Lincolnshire. It has been suggested that the type of roads—single carriageways and long, straight roads with occasional chicanes or bends in them, for example—and the presence of a lot of agricultural traffic can increase the rates. There is a high incidence of collisions when people become impatient behind an agricultural vehicle and overtake unsafely. There are several other reasons, including people not being familiar with the area—holidaymakers for example—and travelling too fast for the roads. It is difficult to put one's finger on what has caused the higher rate in certain areas. Other authorities also have a high rate, and there are no obvious reasons for that, but we examine such matters carefully. I am not sure that investigating each casualty will necessarily take us forward, and examining trends in authorities can be a better option.

Anne McIntosh: The Under-Secretary has been astute in identifying the type of road that could cause problems. The Government have delayed the de-trunking programme for one year because of the introduction of a new spending formula, and that is welcome, but my concern is that considering that the roads that he identified may be causing accidents or be a contributory factor in them, is this the right time to proceed with the de-trunking programme? Would it not be better for road safety to identify the contribution that those roads make before the programme passes on the responsibility?

David Jamieson: The de-trunking programme will be done with close discussion and liaison with the Highways Agency. Several issues other than road safety are involved, including controlling traffic flow, which we feel that it is better for the local authority to handle. Most authorities agree with us and are happy to take the responsibility. Road safety is an important issue, but there are others, too.
 The hon. Lady asked about paying for witness statements. It is a matter in which there is no difference between traffic and non-traffic liability. However, if she wants more detail—it is a little beyond the scope of the Committee, and I know that you do not want us to talk too much about letters, Mr. Hurst—I could add that to the list of queries to respond to later. 
 The hon. Lady also asked about STATS 19 and the quality of information. The form provides high-quality information, but one difficulty is that the form is not compiled in a consistent way throughout the country. As the hon. Member for Bath said, the way in which the information is fed in is also important. We are closely examining the form and the information technology that backs it up to try to get better consistency and quality of information and help the police officer at the side of the road save a considerable amount of time in gathering accurate information. 
 We are deeply sympathetic to the idea of reducing road casualties, and improving safety is at the core of our road policies. We have provided substantial amounts of money for local authorities to improve road safety in their own areas, and the Department is doing an enormous amount to reduce casualties on our roads. Notwithstanding that, I am not convinced that, worthy as they are, the proposals would provide a cost-effective route forward. We share the ambition to create safer roads, so it is with reluctance that I urge my hon. Friends to resist the new clause.

Don Foster: I thank the Under-Secretary for his lengthy and detailed response, in which he rightly touched on a wider range of issues than those directly related to the proposals. As I have said on many occasions, no one will doubt the commitment or desire of the present or previous Governments, of any political party, to improve safety on our roads. We may disagree from time to time as to the exact way forward on, for example, speed limits, the use of mobile phones in cars or what the drink-drive limits should be, but no one listening to the Under-Secretary would doubt his sincerity and commitment to take action.
 The new clauses have been debated in an interesting manner. When we were debating the establishment of the rail accident investigation branch, we were conscious that we were mirroring work that had already taken place in marine and aviation services. At that time, the hon. Member for Vale of York was an enthusiastic supporter of the initiative, although perhaps not of all the details. The Under-Secretary was certainly a supporter because he was one of those who proposed the idea. 
 We are conscious, in relation to railways, that when accidents take place, a large number of organisations and individuals are inevitably involved: the police, the train-operating companies, Network Rail, the Health and Safety Executive and so on. They all have a part to play, but I particularly stress the role of the police. Hon. Members on both sides of the House thought it appropriate and sensible to establish, in addition, the rail accident investigation branch. 
 When the hon. Lady responded to the new clauses that referred to roads, she told us that everybody who was involved in roads was doing a fantastic job and that everything was wonderful, so there was no need to make any change. One could interpret that unkindly as being critical of those involved in accident investigation on the railways. She appears to have a high regard for the traffic police and their investigative work, and sees no need for the establishment of a road accident body of the type that I am proposing, yet in relation to the railways, she sees the need for such a body, which implies less confidence in the work of the British Transport police. I cannot believe that that is in the hon. Lady's mind, so perhaps we should put her opposition down to the fact that she was responding to a Liberal Democrat new clause. 
 The Under-Secretary and the hon. Lady have both drawn attention to the large number of investigations and people, alongside the police, that will be necessary 
 given the large number of fatalities on our roads. Both of them are right that a large number of investigators would be required for the work, but that expenditure would be well worth it: benefits would accrue from their work. I should like to place on record my gratitude to all those people who currently conduct investigations, but, as the Under-Secretary said, there remains a need to improve the quality of the information that is used to underpin STATS 19. The only way that we will improve the quality of information is by having people with appropriate skills, experience, and expertise to conduct investigations. That was the reason why I thought it appropriate to table the new clauses. However, at present the new clauses do not have the support of many Committee members. In order that there may be an opportunity to debate the issues later—perhaps in a slightly different form—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 21 - Development of rural road hierarchy

'(1) There shall be a new classification of speed limits for rural roads to be known as a Rural Road Hierarchy. 
 (2) The hierarchy will set maximum speed limits for different road types, and include speed limits no higher than— 
 (a) 20 mph for rural roads in the vicinity of schools and roads designated as Quiet Lanes under the Transport Act 2000; 
 (b) 30 mph for rural roads passing through villages; 
 (c) 40 mph for rural roads which have been classified as Country Lanes; 
 (d) 50 mph for poor quality single carriageways; 
 (e) 60 mph for high quality single carriageways; and 
 (f) 70 mph for dual carriageway roads. 
 (3) For the purposes of this section, a Country Lane is any road which is primarily used for local access, where there is no white centre line, and which has been designated as such by the local transport authority. 
 (4) Local transport authorities shall have the power under this section to review any restricted and unrestricted non-urban road or roads for which they are the traffic authority and reclassify them as part of the rural road hierarchy. 
 (5) Local transport authorities may amend the existing speed limit for a road or roads within that classification, taking into account guidance issued by the Secretary of State. 
 (6) As soon as is practicable and no later than six months after the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall issue guidance as to the way in which a transport authority shall exercise its powers in developing a rural road hierarchy. 
 (7) Guidance under this section shall include guidance on— 
 (a) the function of the rural road hierarchy; 
 (b) definitions of different road types and areas, including country lanes, quiet lanes, and villages (subject to the requirements in subsection 4 and the Transport Act 2000) and how the assessment of road quality is to be made; 
 (c) the procedures for reviewing the classification of roads and reclassifying them, including the use of appraisal; 
 (d) requirements for public consultation; 
 (e) appropriate speed limits for different road types within the hierarchy, subject to the requirements in subsection 2; 
 (f) the procedures for applying speed limits on an area basis; 
 (g) how the rural road hierarchy will link to requirements under the Transport Act 2000 for the production of Local Transport Plans; and 
 (h) the relationship between the rural road hierarchy and urban roads.'.—[Miss McIntosh.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 I shall say why we believe that there is a need for the development of a rural road hierarchy, and why the Government might be minded to follow up the research that has been done on that subject. It would be appropriate to give some statistics on the impact of speed, as opposed to alcohol in the blood, on driver behaviour. The Library figures, which are the most recent that are available, I imagine, show that the number of fatalities caused by speed justify the Government wishing to take action in that regard. 
 I am not sure what the reporting period is but accidents on built-up roads result in some 20,000 serious injuries a year. We touched on the matter earlier but, regrettably, I do not know whether the Minister can say that we are any further forward in judging how many road accidents involve drugs. However, in response to a parliamentary question, one of the Minister's predecessors, who is now Deputy Chief Whip, touched on the fact that a fifth of drivers killed had a blood alcohol level above the legal limit, and went on to say that 
''The Department has undertaken specific research into the incidence of drugs in road accident fatalities. This found that there was a presence of illegal drugs in some 18 per cent. of driver fatalities of which cannabis accounted for about two thirds. However, traces of cannabis remain in the body for some time after any impairing effect, and in general the presence of drugs is not evidence of impairment or accident causation.''—[Official Report, 22 January 2001; Vol. 398, c. 461W.]
 I do not know whether the Minister can show how much further on we are with those figures. 
 The Committee may recall that between 1865 and 1896 locomotives on the highway had to be preceded by a pedestrian carrying a flag and were subject to a speed limit of some 2 mph in populated areas and 4 mph elsewhere. That maximum speed limit was increased to 14 mph, and in 1903 to 20 mph. In 1930, speed limits for cars and motor cycles were abolished. In 1934, roads in built-up areas, which are defined as those with street lighting placed not more than 200 yd apart, had a general limit of 30 mph. Other roads had no speed limit at all until 1965, when a general national upper limit of 70 mph was introduced for all roads including motorways. Since 1977, the speed limit for cars has been 70 mph on dual carriageways and 60 mph on single carriageways. The speed limit on an unclassified road, assuming that it is a single carriageway, is 60 mph. 
 The speed limits on rural roads have been the subject of discussions and research, not least in the Department for Transport's strategy document, which was published in 2000. Paragraph 34 states: 
''The relationship between speed and safety is a complex one. But from the national and international literature there is overwhelming evidence that lower speeds result in fewer collisions of lesser severity.''
 Some interesting conclusions can be drawn, which are listed. It also refers to new research that is being examined, particularly the scope for reducing collisions through speed management. The study concluded that 
''each 1 mph reduction in average speed is expected to cut accident frequency by 5 per cent.''

Kelvin Hopkins: May I seek clarification? Is that a 1 mph reduction from a particular speed? Clearly a reduction of 1 mph from 100 mph would be different proportionately from 1 mph from 30 mph.

Anne McIntosh: I shall come to the speed limits that the Government research has in mind. The report states:
''Broadly each 1 mph reduction in average speed is expected to cut accident frequency by 5 per cent. This is a robust general rule, but now we have a much fuller picture which indicates that the reduction varies according to road type as follows: about 6 per cent. for urban main roads and residential roads with low average speeds; about 4 per cent. for medium speed urban roads and lower speed rural main roads; and about 3 per cent. for the higher speed urban roads and rural single carriageway main roads.''
 The research concluded: 
''About 40 per cent. of pedestrians who are struck at speeds below 20 mph sustain non-minor injuries. This rises to 90 per cent. at speeds up to 30 mph . . . The change from mainly survivable injuries to mainly fatal injuries takes place at speeds of between about 30 and 40 mph . . . Elderly pedestrians are more likely to sustain non-minor injuries than younger people in the same impact conditions . . . It is the combination of speed and lack of protection that makes motorcyclists vulnerable.''
 The Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions, of which I had the privilege to be a member, concluded in a report published in June 2002 that the Government had been slow in carrying forward their road safety strategy with few of their key proposals being implemented and many others being dropped altogether. Perhaps the Minister can explain precisely why that was. The Select Committee affirmed that the Government's principal task should be to ensure that all local and police authorities give reducing road traffic speeds the same priority. It also said that the Government should provide the funds to enable that to be done. It concluded: 
''Specifically, the Government should:
—improve the National Safety Camera Scheme by allowing local and police authorities to decide where to site cameras; and ensure that the whole country is covered by 2004
—issue the promised revised Guidance to local authorities about speed limits; this should include a number of changes, in particular, that 30 mph should be the speed in villages
—re-engineer the roads to ensure that speed limits are obeyed and to make roads safer and more pleasant for pedestrians
—ensure that the funding of Local Transport Plans is dependent on measures to reduce speeds; and
—make road safety a priority for the Ten Year Plan and provide specific funds for a national programme to re-engineer and re-design our roads.''
 The rural road hierarchy has become a cause celebre for some organisations, not least the Council for the Protection of Rural England. I pay tribute to the work done by the CPRE in my constituency and throughout the length and breadth of the country. 
 At the last election, the Conservative party pledged to reduce speed limits on roads outside schools. We were minded to make a commitment in our manifesto to reduce speed limits on rural roads, especially in the vicinity of schools, to 20 mph. We encapsulated that in the concept of a rural road hierarchy, which we submit to the Committee in the form of new clause 21. There would be a 
''new classification of speed limits for rural roads to be known as a Rural Road Hierarchy''
 and a limit of 
''20 mph for rural roads in the vicinity of schools and roads designated as Quiet Lanes under the Transport Act 2000''.

Linda Perham: Subsection (7) of the new clause refers to guidance. One of my constituents has written to me about her concern that a rural roads agency might be set up. Will the hon. Lady confirm that guidance from the Secretary of State is proposed rather than a separate agency?

Anne McIntosh: The hon. Lady will be happy to hear that, having pledged our opposition to the creation of a plethora of agencies, the Conservatives would not create any willy-nilly. That will disappoint the hon. Member for Bath, on whose support, I am delighted to record, we are relying for the purposes of new clause 21. This is an historic occasion. I do not think that it is the start of something big, but the Minister is looking uncomfortable.

David Jamieson: Before the hon. Lady moves on from talking about the Council for the Protection of Rural England, is she aware that, in one of its statements, it said that the environmental damage caused by motoring should be reflected in the cost of motoring. Does she agree?

Anne McIntosh: I will write to the Minister about that matter, because it is not quite within the confines of new clause 21 or the Bill. Perhaps I will discuss the matter with him when I come to Plymouth for my excursion on the chain ferry, although I may have the opportunity to write to him before then.
 There is a rather pretty and not insignificant village called Huby near Easingwold in the Vale of York—not to be confused with Huby near Leeds. I am sure that villagers would wish me to plead their case for having a quiet lane, especially the Tollerton road from Tollerton into Huby. A speed limit of 20 mph may be too low for that road, but we would like to see such a limit for rural roads in the vicinity of schools and roads designated as quiet lanes. 
 We would also like to see a 30 mph limit for rural roads passing through villages and 40 mph for rural roads classified as country lanes. Tollerton road into Huby falls precisely into that category. The Minister might like to make a pledge to designate that road as the first country lane for the purposes of the rural road hierarchy. The Tollerton road into Huby is enjoyed by horse-riders, pedestrians, pedal cyclists and motor cyclists, as well as cars and other vehicles. I plead the case for the reduction of the speed limit to, say, 40 mph, especially in the interests of pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders. 
 I am sure that the Under-Secretary will say the police will argue that it will be difficult to enforce speed reductions on quiet lanes or country lanes, and that they are therefore loth to encourage them. However, it is better for a lower, more appropriate speed to be written into legislation, as the Government argued in their own road strategy document published three years ago. We know that whatever the speed limit, most drivers will drive at that speed plus, say, 5 per cent. That is in the nature of things, which is regrettable. Does the Under-Secretary not think that that strengthens the argument for having a lower, more appropriate speed limit? I know that the Government have noted that concern, as we did when in government. Two sorts of speed limit are of particular concern—those in villages and those on certain rural roads—which I learnt from the paper prepared for the Road Transport Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire. 
 The village speed control working group was set up in July 1991, and comprised members of the County Surveyors Society and the Department of Trade and Industry, including the Transport Research Laboratory. Its purpose was to examine the problem of speeding traffic in villages and to investigate the costs, benefits and effectiveness of various ways of controlling the speed of vehicles. Its final report was published in June 1994. It concluded that low-cost schemes secured only small reductions in speed, and that the more comprehensive the proposals, the more effective they were. 
 Will the Under-Secretary say whether the Department of Trade and Industry has commissioned or investigated further research? Its road strategy document was published three years ago. It is disappointing that there has been little progress. I am delighted to report not only that the CPRE feels strongly about our rural road hierarchy, but that the safer streets coalition—an alliance of some 25 organisations from across the environmental and social voluntary sectors—has also expressed support for our new clause. I am sure the Under-Secretary will appreciate that I will need to consult that coalition before I can write to him in response to his question this afternoon. Writing to some 25 organisations is an expensive exercise. 
 The Prime Minister, no less—I am sure that the Under-Secretary will wish to express his esteem for his own Prime Minister—committed the Government to introducing such a rural road hierarchy when the road safety strategy was launched on 3 March 2000, which is exactly three years ago last week. I support the contention that this is an ideal opportunity to incorporate our rural road hierarchy in primary legislation. 
 Among the 25 members of the coalition, the following organisations have a well-recorded interest in road speed and road transport: the parliamentary advisory council for transport safety, Road—Peace, the UK national charity for road victims, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the National Federation of Women's Institutes. The following 
 organisations also offer their support: the National Parks Forum, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Health, the Children's Play Council, Age Concern, Help the Aged, Royal National Institute of the Blind, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, Transport 2000, the London cycling campaign, Sustrans, Living Streets, Cyclists Touring Club, the national cyclists organisation, Whitby Bird and Partners, and the Institution of Civil Engineers. There is considerable support for new clause 21. We firmly believe that it is worthy of the Government's support and it is entirely in accord with the philosophy set out in their road strategy document. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to pledge his support.

Linda Perham: The hon. Lady read the names of the many supporters of her new clause. I would like to mention the motorcycle action group, which has written to other Committee members. While I do not aspire to be a leader of a pack, there are some active members of that group in my constituency, some of whom I met a while ago. That group believes that the new clause would have a detrimental effect on road safety, that the proposed 40 mph limits would not be appropriate for such occasions on rural roads, and that they would be artificially low at other times. Reducing the speed limit on rural roads to 40 mph would run counter to expert road safety advice given in roads circulars 1/80 and 1/93. Those circulars argue that speed limits are not an effective way to reduce speed.
 My constituent, who is concerned about the rural roads agency, claims that rural roads have less than 0.5 per cent. of all road incidents and less than 1 per cent. of the 0.5 per cent. are speed-related. With reference to the new clause, he says, in typically robust Essex person fashion, ''Get this sorted and removed.''

Tom Brake: May I say as an aside that I am disappointed that the Under-Secretary has not invited me to his constituency? However, even if he were inclined to do so, I would have to decline the offer, because I had a near miss with his ferry when I was a child. I was in a speedboat and the motor had packed in; we were being drawn back towards the ferry.
 I am in favour of new clause 21, the purpose of which is to set a clear road hierarchy. What purpose would that serve? I do not want to repeat the detailed statistics mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath. Suffice to say that we know that around 100 times as many people die on the roads as in rail accidents. Therefore, the issue of roads and road safety must be given priority. The opportunities to improve road safety are few and far between and we must make the best use of them. 
 As the hon. Member for Vale of York has said, it is not as if a large number of organisations and individuals do not support a rural road hierarchy. She has listed the range of organisations that have pledged support and I will not repeat that list. The Prime Minister, when launching the road safety strategy in March 2000, said: 
''We are therefore proposing to develop a new hierarchy of roads defined by their function and quality, which would combine flexibility at local level with consistency nationally''.
 That sounds like a road hierarchy. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State said in response to a debate in Westminster Hall that the Government have 
''already begun to consider the merits and the practical implications of introducing a rural road hierarchy''.—[Official Report, 14 January 2003; Vol. 397, c. 208WH.]
 Clearly, if he thought that it was worth considering the merits of such a system, there must be some validity in the new clause. 
 There are other statistical reasons why we need a rural road hierarchy. For example, in the past year, there has been an increase, notwithstanding the improvements that are being made in road safety, in the number of people killed on rural roads. Furthermore, 65 per cent. of people feel threatened by speeding traffic when they use country lanes. The Government's ambitious cycling targets that we support are unlikely to be met unless cyclists can feel safer on country lanes. 
 A rural road hierarchy would enable road traffic speeds to be dealt with in a holistic and consistent manner. It is important to give clear message to all road users about what traffic speeds should be expected in certain locations. I should point out that there is not universal support for such a proposal, and the motorcycle action group contacted us to express its worry about it. It is worried that reducing rural road limits to 40 mph would introduce an artificial speed limit. It believes that, in certain parts of the country, drivers could drive considerably faster, thus making them less likely to observe speed limits. I do not agree with the group's point. The road safety strategy states that 
''it is clear that on some rural single carriage roads and country lanes, vehicle speeds of 60 mph are too fast''
 The Government's road safety strategy clear sets some parameters about speed limits and says that lower speed limits are more appropriate. 
 The motorcycle action group has also expressed concern about the need for enforcement of such speed limits and the visual impact that cameras may have in a rural area. That is a worry, but it can be resolved by the use of mobile cameras to stop the visual impact. Its worries could be addressed. Even if the Government are not minded to accept joint new clause 21, at least it should serve the purpose of drawing their attention to a matter on which more focus could be applied. 
 I hope that matters have moved on since the Government's road safety strategy and its implementation progress report covering the period to the end of September 2002, which was published in November last year. Let us consider the commitments that were made about road safety. For example, there was action to revise the guidance on setting speed limits and to approve and issue guidance on speed-activated signs and so on. Not all the actions have yet been delivered on, but this may be an opportunity for the Under-Secretary to update us on the implementation progress report and show what progress is being made on rural roads. Perhaps he can convince us that such overwhelming progress has been made that there is no need for new clause 21. I 
 hope, of course, that that is the case. Our new clause sets out clearly the reasons why a rural road hierarchy—

Anne McIntosh: It's our new clause, and you signed it.

Tom Brake: If the hon. Lady would prefer me to be more accurate, the new clause that she tabled, to which we added our names and with which we have great sympathy sets out the reasons why a rural road hierarchy could make a significant difference to road safety in rural areas. It is the Under-Secretary's duty to set out why he thinks that there are measures in place that do away with the need for such a hierarchy.

John Randall: I am happy to have put my name to the new clause, but I rather hope that it is a probing new clause. We have had a useful debate on speed and speed limits. All members of the Committee would welcome any measures to reduce death and injury on the roads, and we know the important role that speed plays in that. One point that interests me is that we are wedded to having speed limits on the tens—of 30, 40, 50 mph and so on—but perhaps it would be more appropriate to talk about 35, 45 and 25 mph. The most important thing with speed—

Anne McIntosh: It sounds dangerously like my hon. Friend is going to propose that speed limits be given in kilometres. Will he clarify his point?

John Randall: I should prefer to go down the chains and furlongs route myself.
 I have sympathy for any Government trying to set limits. One problem is that it is a matter of appropriate limits with regard to weather conditions and the time of night and day. I know from going into rural areas that some cars travel incredibly fast. I am used to pootling along on the suburban highways and byways of west Middlesex, but I dare say that some people from rural areas find the number of cars in my constituency rather frightening. I was going to say that it is horses for courses, but obviously horses are not quite appropriate. We have to consider the problem, but it will be very difficult to solve. At the moment, we do not have enough facts and figures at our disposal to be definite, but I look forward to the Under-Secretary's response.

David Jamieson: Underpinning our thinking on speed is the issue not of reducing speed in itself, but of reducing the casualties caused by people who speed. If we decide that reducing speeds can reduce those casualties, it is a question not of reducing the speed limit, but of reducing the speed of vehicles, which is a different matter.
 There is concern about the number of casualties on rural roads. I do not want to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham), but she will find that the number of casualties on rural roads is disproportionately high. We have put a lot of work and effort into reducing casualties on urban roads, but she will find that, given the amount of traffic that travels on rural roads, there is a disproportionate number of casualties. 
 To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge, inappropriate speed is very often the 
 problem. On occasion, it may be totally inappropriate to travel at 30 miles per hour in the 30 miles per hour zone—for example when children are coming out of school, if the road is wet or if there is limited visibility. The speed limit is not the only issue; there are many other issues as well. On some occasions, a much lower speed limit may be appropriate. Late at night, when there are few people around the 30 mph limit may be perfectly appropriate for that stretch of road. 
 My Department published a report in November 2001 that considered the possible future development of a rural road hierarchy. Subsequently, my Department appeared before the Transport Select Committee inquiry into traffic speed. That inquiry specifically asked: 
''What is being done to combat the effects of inappropriate and excessive speed, particularly in rural areas?''
 The Government responded to the Select Committee in October. We made it clear that we were aware of the need to address the problems of inappropriate and excessive speeds on rural roads. We recognised that the very successful measures already adopted in urban areas, such as road humps, are not always appropriate in rural areas. As our response to the Select Committee made clear, the Department is working very hard to redress that imbalance. 
 The speed limit definitions, as listed in the new clause—from all the hon. Members involved—are already available to local authorities should they wish to introduce them. However, we do not feel that such prescriptive limits are necessarily the way forward, partly because rural communities differ enormously from county to county. What may be suitable in one area may not be suitable in another, and such defined limits would undoubtedly cause difficulties. 
 I say to the hon. Member for Vale of York that if the people of Huby feel that they would like a reduced speed limit, it is a matter for the local highways authority, which has power to do something now. I do not know the current speed limit in the village, but putting a sign at either end of the village that says 30 or 20 miles an hour will probably not be very effective in reducing the speed of vehicles going through the village. However, it may work if it is associated with other works, such as a different-coloured road. A safety camera might be appropriate or some sort of engineering of the roads on the approaches to the villages may help, but reducing the speed limit alone is probably unlikely to be highly effective in achieving what I said at the beginning, which is that it is not just about putting a different speed limit on the road but actually reducing the number of casualties and the effect that speed has.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has been very helpful, but can he explain why his Department has not come forward with follow-ups to its paper of 2000?

David Jamieson: I was just coming to that. Members will be interested to know that we are working on the development of a framework to assess what speeds are appropriate together with what speeds are actually
 being driven on rural roads. We expect the first results of that work to be available some time in the middle of this year. That work will feed into our plans to revise the guidance on setting local speed limits more appropriately. We also plan to publish advice on village entry signing later in 2003 to assist local authorities in introducing more 30 mph speed limits in rural villages.
 The problem of inappropriate speed in rural areas is a real concern. Vehicle spends that are below the speed limit but are considered too dangerous for a particular road cannot be tackled by the use of more conventional and highly successful enforcement cameras. However, we have finished trials on devices that we believe will help enormously in that area. Trials of vehicle-activated signs as a measure to curb inappropriate speeds, especially in rural areas, by warning drivers of potential hazards ahead or reminding them of the speed limit in force, were very successful. 
 The Committee will be pleased to know that the revised Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 contain much more flexibility in allowing their use. My officials are also currently preparing guidance in the form of a traffic advisory leaflet, which we hope will be available by the end of this month. We are committed on the issues and are taking appropriate action. 
 The hon. Member for Vale of York talked about cameras and where they are placed. The partnership scheme between local authorities, the judiciary and the police can bring in the use of a camera in certain areas. Where there have been trials, the overall effect of reducing casualties has been dramatic at certain sites that had had a poor road safety record that involved speed. The difficulty is that we do not want to see a plethora of cameras in rural areas where they will not have any effect in reducing casualties, nor do we want a plethora of signs that can be deeply intrusive. We must consider that issue, not least because of the cost of installing such cameras that might have only a minimal effect. We need to focus our energies and finite resources on creating safer environments. 
 The hon. Lady asked about the number of road accidents in which drugs had been a factor. It is quite difficult to estimate that. Alcohol is far more common and easier to detect, although research has shown that drugs are present in about 18 per cent. of road accident fatalities. However, that does not mean that the drugs are a causal factor in those incidents. 
 I am sorry that the last time the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington visited Plymouth he had such an unpleasant experience with a speedboat and the chain ferry bearing down on him. I believe that there was an occasion many years ago on which the chain ferry had a slight altercation with a frigate—the chain ferry came off worse, but I am pleased to say that nobody was hurt. I hope that I am not putting the hon. Member for Vale of York off her trip. One or two large, grey ships with guns on them go up and down the Tamar, and if the hon. Lady behaves herself, I might even see if we can get her on one of those as well. 
 So that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington can be certain, I tell him we are not doing away with the rural road hierarchy, but putting into place something that is realistic, based on good advice and appropriate to reduce the casualties on those roads. 
 The hon. Member for Uxbridge made some good points, but I am not quite about speed limits in gradations of fewer than 10 mph—a speed limit of 35.6 mph might not be immediately understood by road users. Nevertheless, local highways authorities may reduce the speed limits where they think that that is appropriate. However, as I said earlier, that must usually be associated with other measures as well, to make it effective. 
 There is widespread consensus that we need to do something about safety on rural roads. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that the new clause and the way in which it sets out a rather rigid hierarchy of speed limits would give us what I said earlier was our ambition, which is to reduce the number of casualties on the roads. I shall therefore ask that the new clause be resisted.

Anne McIntosh: I am upset and disappointed that the Minister cannot support the new clause and is asking that it be resisted. I have not been put off by my visit to his constituency, and, having driven a frigate—HMS Cumberland in the Gulf—I hope that the Minister can organise it so that I can drive the chain ferry as part of my visit. Perhaps I could drive the ferry and the captain could have the afternoon off, as long as I do not go over a particular speed.
 I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his comments to the hon. Member for Ilford, North. Those of us who represent rural constituencies are deeply vexed about the incidence of traffic and accidents, fatalities and casualties on rural roads. The figures show that North Yorkshire is second only to Lincolnshire in having the highest number of road accidents on rural roads. For the benefit of the Committee—in particular, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington—the road accident casualties by road-user type horrifyingly show that the number of motorcyclists and passengers killed in 2001 reached 583, which surpasses the figure for child pedestrians although it is not as high as the figure for adult pedestrians. 
 I should like to put at rest the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge: the amendment was meant as a useful probing exercise. I am grateful for the benefits of a good debate, a good discussion and a thoughtful response from the Under-Secretary. 
 We have a number of speed cameras in North Yorkshire. I know that it will not go any further than the Committee when I say that not every camera has a film in it, although as we speak, I am sure that most cameras have a film. To provide a deterrent, one would hope that most cameras would record the evidence. I was trying to elicit the point—the Under-Secretary's remarks have been most helpful—that the costs of putting up a road sign are considerably less than the costs of fitting and manning a camera and 
 scrutinising film. Even changing a road surface can lead to considerable expense. 
 I do not know whether the Under-Secretary necessarily responded to my points on enforcement, but he will be bringing forward further provisions in the middle of the year. I entirely support his remarks that the issue does not concern only reducing vehicle speed. We are united in wanting a reduction in the number of casualties on all our roads, and in particular on rural roads. 
 In response to the adverse reaction from the motorcyclists action group, I support the motor cyclists as road users and hope that they will use the roads as sensibly as they possibly can. Aggressive motor cyclists occasionally use roads in rural areas such as North Yorkshire and Cumbria and impair the enjoyment of other road users such as horse riders, cyclists and pedestrians. I hope that we can all use the roads with equal regard for others. I am grateful for the Under-Secretary's comments and assurances, and we shall watch out for the provisions, which he has assured us will come forward in the middle of this year. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 22 - Prescribed limits

'( ) The Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52) shall be amended as follows— 
 (a) In Section 11(2): 
 (i){**?h=8pt**}in (a) leave out ''35'' and insert ''22''; 
 (ii){**?h=6pt**}in (b) leave out ''80'' and insert ''50''; 
 (iii) in (c) leave out ''107'' and insert ''67''. 
 (b) In section 8(2) leave out ''50'' and insert ''35''.'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 I am conscious of the time and I am also conscious that this is a matter that many Government and Opposition Members would be interested in debating. I therefore hope that there will be an opportunity, if we are not able satisfactorily to finish the debate today, to return to the topic at a later stage of the Bill's passage. 
 As I have done in relation to other road safety matters, I shall begin by placing on the record my praise for the work done by a large number of people in seeking to reduce the number of accidents caused by drink-driving. We ought to record our great thanks not only to the police for their work, but to Government Departments and past Governments, which have undertaken effective advertising campaigns, particularly at Christmas. 
 I also want to record my tribute to local organisations and local newspapers, such as The Bath Chronicle, which have worked in the field—[Interruption.] Its readers will be delighted to know that so many Committee members are avid readers. Like many other newspapers, it started a campaign in autumn 2001, which it has continued since, working 
 closely with local police and developing a name-and-shame approach in the event of any drink-driving prosecutions. 
 The new clause would reduce the current limits on alcohol in blood, urine and breath. It is worth recording that Baroness Castle of Blackburn, who as Barbara Castle first introduced the breathalyser law on 10 May 1967, said at the time that she thought the blood limit was overgenerous. It was, and is, 80 mg in 100 ml. I will touch briefly on the fact that there has been a great deal of work subsequently to suggest that the limit is overgenerous and that it would be appropriate to reduce it. 
 I note with interest that in a speech on 30 November 1996, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), when she was Opposition transport spokesperson for the Labour party, made a clear policy commitment that Labour would reduce the limit to 50 mg once in office. The night before that speech, she said: 
''The new Labour Government will show no leniency to those who wilfully put their desire for a pint before the life of a person. The pain and misery of drink driving lasts for life, not just for Christmas.''
 That was the clear commitment made by the Labour party before the 1997 general election. Having won that election, the Government undertook various consultations, and in their February 1998 report, ''Combating Drink-Driving—Next Steps'', said: 
''For drivers in the 50–80mg range, the risk of a non-fatal accident is around 2 to 2.5 times as high as for a sober driver: for a fatal accident the risk is about 6 times as high.''
 That is the category of drivers that my new clause would affect. 
 All the data gathered for that Government consultation report pointed to the need to reduce the limit along the lines proposed in the new clause. In March 2000, however, the Government changed their tack. In ''Tomorrow's roads: safer for everyone—the Government's road safety strategy and casualty reductions targets for 2010'', they said: 
''The European Commission is currently reviewing its existing proposal for a Directive on the drink-drive limit. Though we do not yet have details, it is likely there will be continued pressure for a harmonised 50mg overall limit in Europe, and possibly even lower limits for specific categories of driver. If the UK acted unilaterally, we could end up having to readjust to new European regulations soon afterwards.
We therefore intend to deal with proposed reductions in the European context.''
 In other words, the Government put off the issue and waited to see what European directives would be introduced. 
 More recently, the Under-Secretary made it clear in a written answer on 20 March 2002 that the Government had no plans to make a change in the foreseeable future: 
''The limit will stay at 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. The Government consulted on this in 1998 and waited upon proposals from Europe before considering the matter further. No firm legislation was forthcoming from the European Union although the European Commission produced a Recommendation which, among other measures, recommended community wide 
harmonisation of the legal blood alcohol content limit for motorists at 50 mg.''—[Official Report, 20 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 361W.]
 Now, it is clear that even when the Government were saying that they were not minded to take any action they were aware of the desire at European level for a reduction in this country to bring about harmonisation. With the exceptions of Ireland, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom, drink-drive limits in all other member countries are set at 50 mg. The limit is lower in Sweden and lower still in many parts of eastern Europe. When we touched on the issue previously, the Minister of State emphasised that the penalties in other countries, which are mostly lower than the penalties here, should be taken into account. I have checked the Minister's documents, which are incorrect. In the majority of countries, the disqualification maximums are higher than in this country, as are the prison sentence maximums. The one difference, to which I suspect the Minister is referring, is the limit at which automatic disqualification applies. On that, he is correct. In this country, the threshold for disqualification is lower, but overall, the penalties imposed in other countries are higher. 
 Of course, I would be first to admit that one cannot make strict comparisons between countries merely by considering absolute limits. A range of other factors, such as enforcement and publicity, must be taken into account. I hope that the Committee will acknowledge, however—this was reported during a debate in the House of Lords some time ago—that, overall, bearing in mind those variations, the evidence suggests that reducing the limit would lead to an increase in the numbers of deaths and serious injuries that take place on the roads as a result of drink-drive related accidents, as it has in other countries. 
 I would like to say much more, but I am aware that we are short of time. There is considerable merit in the amendments, which would bring practice in this country into line with that in the majority of other European countries, something to which the Labour party committed itself before it was elected in 1997.

Kelvin Hopkins: We are very short of time but I want to say that I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Bath said about drink-driving. I feel strongly about the matter and hope that we can persuade the Government to change their mind on this important issue. I believe that we could reduce the number of deaths that result from drink-driving. I also favour the more frequent use of long-term driving bans, including lifetime bans, for serious driving offences. I want to put that on the record. Although I imagine that this is not the appropriate time to add such a new provision, I hope that the Government can be persuaded to do so in the near future.

Anne McIntosh: We prefer to leave the limits as they are because we believe that reduced limits would be unenforceable.

David Jamieson: This has been a short but interesting debate. Again, as I stressed in my opening remarks on the previous set of amendments, the Government's
 ambition is not merely to reduce limits, but to reduce the casualties that are caused by those who drink and then drive on our roads. I agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North, that although we have severe penalties, we must examine better ways of enforcing them.
 We must also examine the serious cases that are not addressed in the amendment of people who consistently drink to levels above the 80 mg limit. It is those people who cause most of the casualties on our roads, but I will not detain the Committee today with the measures that we are considering to give us more power over them. That is a more important issue than some that have been raised. 
 The hon. Member for Bath discussed harmonisation, as if there was some great value in harmonising legislation with other countries in the European Union. In some respects, I have no difficulty with that concept, but I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman would want us to harmonise with the number of casualties that are caused by drink-driving in France or in Spain, for example. Would he want us to harmonise with the level of enforcement in France? The United Kingdom enjoys greater enforcement of the drink-driving levels, and has fewer casualties caused by drink-driving than nearly all other European countries. 
 The merits of introducing a blood alcohol concentration limit of 50 mg or lower have been extensively examined and debated over a long period. Much research has been undertaken and the experiences of other countries have been taken into account. 
 In the 1998 consultation paper, ''Combating Drink Driving—Next Steps'', to which the hon. Member for Bath referred, the Government acknowledged that many drivers experienced some degree of impairment at blood alcohol levels below 80 mg. However, the potential injury savings from lowering the limit to 50 mg depend on the assumptions and estimates that are made. The extent of driver impairment below 80 mg in individual drivers is less certain than when the blood alcohol levels exceed 80 mg. 
 We know that the results of research from other countries, where legal limits have been reduced to below 80 mg, are likely to have been affected by advertising, enforcement or other measures taken. It is therefore difficult to disentangle the beneficial effects of any single measure, such as reducing the limit, from the overall effect of a whole package of measures, such as those that we have been successful in introducing in the UK. 
 Another factor referred to by the hon. Member for Bath was the penalties for road traffic offences. That is a key element in enforcing the drink-driving laws. Despite what the hon. Gentleman said, the penalties for exceeding the 80 mg limit in the UK are more severe than they are in most other European countries. There is, for example, a mandatory minimum disqualification period of 12 months for any drink-driving offence. That penalty can be combined with up to six months' imprisonment and a fine of up to 
 £5,000. I do not know of any other country that enforces such a rigorous limit. 
 A further problem would be that if we applied our penalties at a 50 mg limit, that would put us further out of line with the European Union in terms of sanctions. Moreover, if we had differential rates of 50 mg, 80 mg and so on, that could imply that there was a safe level at which to drink. We have heard strongly from my Department that only one message should be communicated: that there is no way to drink and drive safely. It is a no drink and drive message rather than a low drink and drive message. That is the difficulty when debating whether the limit should be 80, 50, 40 or 20. The message that we have been reinforcing successfully is no drink and drive rather than low drink and drive. 
 The real problem in the UK, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North, is not those who are on the margins but the people—often young men, I am sad to say—who consistently drive above the legal limit and do not see that there is any problem in doing so. Those are the people whom we must address, and they will be targeted by the action and research in my Department. 
 Although we share the strong ambition to reduce casualties, I urge the Committee to resist the amendments.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am very conscious of the time. All the estimates show that between 80 and 100 lives would be saved every year if we reduced the legal limit. I pointed out that one cannot make easy comparisons because of enforcement and advertising. I point out to the Minister that one cannot advertise a 50 mg limit if one has not introduced a 50 mg limit; nor can one enforce it unless one has introduced it. This is an important issue that we have not had an opportunity to debate, although I hope we may do so in future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Anne McIntosh: May I thank you, Mr. Hurst, and your co-Chairmen, Mr. Hood, Mr. Benton and Mr. Mahmood, for gracing us with fine chairmanship? I think Mr. Mahmood was making his debut performance, and it was a very successful one. I thank Hansard for its sterling work, as ever. I thank the Clerks for giving us excellent service throughout, and I hope that we will continue to enjoy their services for the remaining stages.
 I thank all the hon. and right hon. Members of the Committee, not least my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge, for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) and for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon). I thank the police for maintaining good order in our proceedings. I thank also the Minister's Department, which did a great deal of preparatory work. I thank the Doorkeepers for making sure that the Doors are locked firmly at night.

Don Foster: May I associate myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington with all of those thanks? I thank you in particular,
 Mr. Hurst, and your main co-Chairman, Mr. Hood, and also Mr. Benton and Mr. Mahmood for their sterling work in keeping us in order. No doubt you have deliberated on the implications of a bigamist stepping off a trolley bus in Scotland onto a jet-ski on a lake in the vicinity of a railway line, only to be arrested by a constable whose hat had blown off. Those are the sorts of issues that we ended up debating, but with great good humour.
 Although there are provisions in the Bill that many of us would like to see changed, we recognise that it is an important Bill, and in retrospect, we shall all be pleased to have played a small part in it. In particular, I hope that our deliberations on the British Transport police and the rail accident investigation branch will save ''Thomas the Tank Engine''—I see that there have been so many accidents in the BBC episodes of that programme that psychologists now say that children may be severely damaged for life. If we can reduce the number of accidents in episodes of ''Thomas the Tank Engine'', we will have done good for future generations as well as for present ones.

John Spellar: In the brief time left available by Opposition Members—as usual—I wish to thank you, Mr. Hurst, for your handling of the Committee. You are always on the lookout for hesitation, repetition or deviation from the subject under discussion. Even so, some Members on the Opposition Benches proved that they can speak for longer than just a minute. We must not forget the considerable help that we received from
 your colleagues, Mr. Hood and Mr. Benton. The latter was kidnapped from the Corridor to officiate at our proceedings and who is now looking for stand-by money. I also thank Mr. Mahmood, and I hope that his contribution will be noted by the Speaker's Office.
 We have enjoyed one another's company over the 18 sittings. The important thing is that, despite some deviations, the Committee has thoroughly scrutinised a highly important Bill. It will allow us to take important steps to improve the safety of transport by setting up an independent rail accident investigation branch, imposing alcohol limits on marine and aviation staff and creating an independent police authority for the British Transport police. Those and other measures will contribute to increasing passenger confidence and safer more reliable transport. 
 The Bill represents an important addition to our legislative framework, and I am pleased that so many of its measures have received so much support from both sides of the Committee. I hope that that will remain the case during its further progress through Parliament.

Alan Hurst: Before I put the question, I join in the thanks to those who have served the Committee with such good humour. The question is that I report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at Five o'clock.